The 2017 tax reform from an economic point of view

[NightFox]

It has been widely speculated that China's economy will pass the USA in 2018 and the USA will lose it's designation as the world's biggest/strongest economy. Good thing? Bad thing?

Ummm...no

The speculation is that China's share of global output adjusted for purchasing power parity will surpass that of the United States in 2018 not that the size of Chinas Economy will surpass that of the United States in 2018, the speculation on that prospect happening is sometime after 2030.

That depends on who you ask, and I honestly don't have any means to determine that so I am as dependent on what others write/say just like most others here.

"BusinessInsider" says in 11 years which would put it around 2028.

This article in Forbes says 2018.
China's Economy Will Overtake The U.S. In 2018

2028 isn't 2018 and the consensus for China's nominal GDP exceeding that of the United States appears to be sometime after 2030, could be 2028, could be 2050, could be never but it's a very safe bet that it won't be in 2018.

There's no perfectly accurate way to determine that since unforeseen events affecting economic growth are as any economist will tell you, unforeseeable.

Who do you believe? I personally think economists, like weather forecasters, at best can make educated long range estimates, but I do believe we can safely say that China's economy is expanding at a much faster rate than ours and, given their far less oppressive regulation and taxation policies on commerce and industry, they no doubt will surpass us unless we rethink how we do things and stop clinging to the status quo.

The growth rate of China's economy is significantly higher than ours due a number of factors a few of which are: it's still significantly smaller (around 61% of US Nominal GDP) and thus can maintain higher growth rates at lower inflation risk, less complex, has a higher savings rate and has significant comparative advantage in a number of areas (e.g. manufacturing) which allows it to offset the deferred consumption of it's labor force with exports and thus maintain its high level of capital investment.

At the end of the day if/when China's nominal output exceeds that of the United States, it's not the end of the world as long as trade relations between the two countries remain positive and the United States Government doesn't further stifle the competitiveness of domestic producers any more than it already has.

Trade creates wealth for all parties involved over the long term comparative advantage will iron out who trades what with whom and how much of it.​

Well, within a year, we will know whether you or at least the guy at Forbes is correct.

I suspect that the Forbes article will be correct (or close), the problem is that it's not forecasting what you are saying it's forecasting, it's forecasting what I said 2 posts ago, that China's PPP adjusted share of global output will surpass that of the United States in 2018, what it's not saying is that the China's economy from a nominal GDP perspective will surpass that of the United States in 2018 (i.e. that'll it'll be bigger than that of the U.S.).

Like you, I don't see how China's 1.3 billion people producing more than our 330 million people would necessarily mean that the American people lose benefits UNLESS it includes a cost in American jobs, opportunity, prosperity. I am glad we have a President who understands that and who intends that free trade not include unfair trade and who knows that American commerce and industry must be allowed to be more competitive in a global market.

You have to look at comparative advantage which is really the key when it comes down to trade between nations, the question isn't how MUCH you produce, the question is are you producing the RIGHT THINGS.

Here's a really simple example of what I'm talking about:

We're both farmers..

You are really good at producing oranges (you have a comparative advantage in producing oranges)
I'm really good at producing apples (I have a comparative advantage in producing apples)

If I spend my efforts equally producing both apples and oranges, I can produce 50 apples and 25 oranges a day
If you spend your efforts equally doing the same you can produce 50 oranges and 25 apples a day

If I spend all my efforts producing only apples I can produce 100 apples a day
If you do the same with oranges you can produce 100 oranges a day

So one would say my opportunity cost of producing 1 orange is 2 apples, your opportunity cost of producing 1 apple is 2 oranges

If we decide to trade at a 1 to 1 ratio (our "trade agreement")
I take 25 of my 100 apples and trade them to you for 25 or your 100 oranges

Now I have 75 apples and 25 oranges
You have 75 oranges and 25 apples

If we hadn't traded and continued to split our time producing both we'd have had
Me 50 apples 25 oranges
You 50 oranges 25 apples

The fact that would decided to specialize and trade to comparative advantage made us both wealthier (I got an extra 25 apples, you got an extra 25 oranges), hope that makes sense.

The key is to stick to producing things that we have a comparative advantage in and trade for the things that we don't (and not do trade deals that disadvantage ourselves), (basically) in national terms that means government doesn't mangle up the markets trying to encourage wasting resources producing things we are at a comparative disadvantage producing.

 

[edthecynic]

He closed the column with this provocative observation:

If you have doubts about Adam Smith's prediction, ask yourself which areas of our lives are we the most satisfied and those with most complaints. Would they be profit motivated arenas such supermarkets, video or clothing stores, or be nonprofit motivated government-operated arenas such as public schools, postal delivery or motor vehicle registration? By the way, how many of you would be in favor of Congress running our supermarkets?

If supermarkets are run so great, let them run the military!!!!

Williams is an idiotic hack.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I previously posted (in this thread I think but I am not sure), President Trump got about 1/4th of what he actually wanted in this tax bill. I am sure he is looking at it as a start. America is a great nation that true patriots appreciate for all the right reasons, but it has been in decline for some time now. He was elected for his vision and the objectives/goals he saw as necessary for America to regain its former greatness.

I am sure that he is not looking at the just passed tax bill as the whole deal. I think he looks at it as just the beginning of true and complete reform that is greatly needed in order to benefit all the people.

The haters criticize it because it is only a partial fix and won't benefit this person or that person and/or it benefits 'the rich'. The patriots see it as opportunity to move forward and continue to improve.

Well that’s a very friendly and optimistic view. But if we are oooking objectively at the plan I think we see a very clear effort to put billions of dollars back in the accounts of corporations. That is clear and that is a supported position from many people as they believe it will create jobs and grow wages. But let’s be honest about it. And let’s be honest that what the bill does runs in contrast to how it is being presented by Trump.

He says it’s the biggest tax cut in American history, not true, Reagan took the tax rate from 70% to 28%. He also says it is a bill centered around the middle class. Again, not true. It gave $1000-$2000 a year to middle class families in some areas and a break even in other areas while Millions go into the accounts of top earners and corporations.

I actually like some of what Trump campaigns for, but I’m not seeing it translated. He is proving, to me, to be more of a talker than a doer who displays a strong understanding of details. He is a salesman

Trump is one helluva talker, I'll give you that. But all pols are pretty good at blowing their own horn, something he might have a natural talent for. If you're not seeing some progress from his policies then maybe you're not really looking. GDP is up quite a bit over what it was under Obama, and we haven't yet seen the effects kick in of the new tax bill. He's been cutting regulations and changing many gov't policies to be more business friendly and competitive with foreign interests, and the economy is getting stronger as a result. Don't know how anyone can deny that.

You see this tax bill as primarily putting billions back into the accounts of big corps, but I see it as leveling the international playing field. We are bringing our corp tax rate down to the point where it is about on par with most of our trading partners, or close to it. Are you going to tell me you don't see the benefits of doing that? What about the tax cuts for the middle class, who contrary to what the MSM says IS in fact getting the lions share of the tax cuts on the individual side. According to the Joint Committee on Taxes, the % change from the current tax code to the new one is greatest for the 3 groups between $40k -100k. So what's wrong with that. Look, you've GOT to incentivize investments if you want economic growth, and as a result the people with the most money to invest are going to do very well. That's just the way it is, if you want more investing then youlower the taxes on it.

View attachment 168219

I agree that the economy is in good shape. I think Trump is taking more credit than he is due and touting about it more than he should but thats what he does. Take unemployment for example. Trump takes credit for having one of the lowest unemployment rates in decades. But lets look at the historical trend and see where credit should be given:
View attachment 168223
GDP
You brought up GDP. Again lets just look at the historical chart and see how the Trump "explosion" has compared to past years:

Regulations
I'm all for cutting unnecessary regulations but I also recognize the danger in cutting too much. Reagan is praised by many for all the regulations he cut, but look what came from his deregulation of the financial industry... Ponzi schemes, mass corruption and thievery from wall street and in conjunction with Clinton and the democrats we saw the recent housing crisis destroy our economy and livelihood of many Americans.

So what is too much? Is it really necessary to spend millions on environmental studies before construction on a manufacturing plant that will employ hundreds or thousands can be built?

Is it really necessary that a small business man has to fill out forms and information providing essentially the same information to five to ten different government agencies when one form could be completed, sent to a central office who would distribute it to everybody else?

What is so horrible about the states deciding what is best and most profitable and beneficial for their people instead of the federal government dictating sometimes conflicting rules and regulations from Washington?

So what is too much? Is it really necessary to spend millions on environmental studies before construction on a manufacturing plant that will employ hundreds or thousands can be built?
I think there can be a healthy effort to invest and focus on both the environment and infrastructure. This isn't an either or game.

Is it really necessary that a small business man has to fill out forms and information providing essentially the same information to five to ten different government agencies when one form could be completed, sent to a central office who would distribute it to everybody else?
No, that isn't necessary and those regulations and systems should absolutely be reviewed and improved for efficiency.

What is so horrible about the states deciding what is best and most profitable and beneficial for their people instead of the federal government dictating sometimes conflicting rules and regulations from Washington?
Nothing horrible about that at all. State should be free to work that way and the Feds make national laws only when circumstances call for it.

So we are in agreement that the bureaucracy and red tape imposed by the federal government is out of control and too costly and oppressive. What was not said is that it has become a drag on American commerce and industry but I am making that argument now.

But not how you dodged the real issue in the matter of regulation. You stated there was a danger in cutting too much.

My question was: So what is too much? Is it really necessary to spend millions on environmental studies before construction on a manufacturing plant that will employ hundreds or thousands can be built?

You didn't really answer that. You responded: "I think there can be a healthy effort to invest and focus on both the environment and infrastructure. This isn't an either or game."

It IS an either or game. Nobody has argued, I don't believe, that there is no role for the federal government to impose certain NECESSARY regulation. Colorado should not be allowed to pollute the water that New Mexico depends on for instance. Ohio should not be subject to air pollution from a neighboring state's industrial plant. But is spending millions on years and years of environmental studies before a manufacturing plant that will employ hundreds or thousands can be built something that is beneficial to the people? Are all those rules and regulations necessary?

For example, the USA has the largest oil refining capability in the world but ALL our refineries are aging, contain serious safety issues as they age, and are not being upgraded or replaced. All are running at maximum capacity except for the 20% that are idled due to break downs or accidents/fires--and because there are so few, even one breaking down affects the price of gasoline.

A new refinery has a strong positive impact on a state's economy, but it costs billions to build resulting in modest profits for years. Add the almost impossible costs and entanglements of the enormous amount of regulations, paperwork, and red tape involved in meeting environmental regulations alone has resulted in no new refineries being built in the USA since 1976. That is more than four decades ago! Our population has increased by 1/3 over that 40 years and our need for refined petroleum products has doubled.

Nobody wants polluted air, water, soil. But commerce and industry can exist, produce, create jobs and a good living/life for hundreds of millions of people who can still enjoy a clean, healthy environment and aesthetic beauty. Wouldn't that be a better goal than thousands upon thousands of rules and regulations, many of which are likely outdated, unnecessary, and even detrimental, when it comes to benefiting the people?

 

[Foxfyre]

It has been widely speculated that China's economy will pass the USA in 2018 and the USA will lose it's designation as the world's biggest/strongest economy. Good thing? Bad thing?

Ummm...no

The speculation is that China's share of global output adjusted for purchasing power parity will surpass that of the United States in 2018 not that the size of Chinas Economy will surpass that of the United States in 2018, the speculation on that prospect happening is sometime after 2030.

That depends on who you ask, and I honestly don't have any means to determine that so I am as dependent on what others write/say just like most others here.

"BusinessInsider" says in 11 years which would put it around 2028.

This article in Forbes says 2018.
China's Economy Will Overtake The U.S. In 2018

2028 isn't 2018 and the consensus for China's nominal GDP exceeding that of the United States appears to be sometime after 2030, could be 2028, could be 2050, could be never but it's a very safe bet that it won't be in 2018.

There's no perfectly accurate way to determine that since unforeseen events affecting economic growth are as any economist will tell you, unforeseeable.

Who do you believe? I personally think economists, like weather forecasters, at best can make educated long range estimates, but I do believe we can safely say that China's economy is expanding at a much faster rate than ours and, given their far less oppressive regulation and taxation policies on commerce and industry, they no doubt will surpass us unless we rethink how we do things and stop clinging to the status quo.

The growth rate of China's economy is significantly higher than ours due a number of factors a few of which are: it's still significantly smaller (around 61% of US Nominal GDP) and thus can maintain higher growth rates at lower inflation risk, less complex, has a higher savings rate and has significant comparative advantage in a number of areas (e.g. manufacturing) which allows it to offset the deferred consumption of it's labor force with exports and thus maintain its high level of capital investment.

At the end of the day if/when China's nominal output exceeds that of the United States, it's not the end of the world as long as trade relations between the two countries remain positive and the United States Government doesn't further stifle the competitiveness of domestic producers any more than it already has.

Trade creates wealth for all parties involved over the long term comparative advantage will iron out who trades what with whom and how much of it.​

Well, within a year, we will know whether you or at least the guy at Forbes is correct.

I suspect that the Forbes article will be correct (or close), the problem is that it's not forecasting what you are saying it's forecasting, it's forecasting what I said 2 posts ago, that China's PPP adjusted share of global output will surpass that of the United States in 2018, what it's not saying is that the China's economy from a nominal GDP perspective will surpass that of the United States in 2018 (i.e. that'll it'll be bigger than that of the U.S.).

Like you, I don't see how China's 1.3 billion people producing more than our 330 million people would necessarily mean that the American people lose benefits UNLESS it includes a cost in American jobs, opportunity, prosperity. I am glad we have a President who understands that and who intends that free trade not include unfair trade and who knows that American commerce and industry must be allowed to be more competitive in a global market.

You have to look at comparative advantage which is really the key when it comes down to trade between nations, the question isn't how MUCH you produce, the question is are you producing the RIGHT THINGS.

Here's a really simple example of what I'm talking about:

We're both farmers..

You are really good at producing oranges (you have a comparative advantage in producing oranges)
I'm really good at producing apples (I have a comparative advantage in producing apples)

If I spend my efforts equally producing both apples and oranges, I can produce 50 apples and 25 oranges a day
If you spend your efforts equally doing the same you can produce 50 oranges and 25 apples a day

If I spend all my efforts producing only apples I can produce 100 apples a day
If you do the same with oranges you can produce 100 oranges a day

So one would say my opportunity cost of producing 1 orange is 2 apples, your opportunity cost of producing 1 apple is 2 oranges

If we decide to trade at a 1 to 1 ratio (our "trade agreement")
I take 25 of my 100 apples and trade them to you for 25 or your 100 oranges

Now I have 75 apples and 25 oranges
You have 75 oranges and 25 apples

If we hadn't traded and continued to split our time producing both we'd have had
Me 50 apples 25 oranges
You 50 oranges 25 apples

The fact that would decided to specialize and trade to comparative advantage made us both wealthier (I got an extra 25 apples, you got an extra 25 oranges), hope that makes sense.

The key is to stick to producing things that we have a comparative advantage in and trade for the things that we don't (and not do trade deals that disadvantage ourselves), (basically) in national terms that means government doesn't mangle up the markets trying to encourage wasting resources producing things we are at a comparative disadvantage producing.

Point well taken and brilliantly argued. The one component you left out of the equation though:

What if whatever handicaps you in production of oranges is remedied so that you become as efficient and cost effective as I am in producing oranges? And because we are both competitive, our customers will benefit from more affordable oranges even as we benefit ourselves.

That seems to be the goal, i.e. to remove as many barriers to profitability as possible for American commerce and industry so that it can be more competitive in a global market. We might even redevelop industries we have mostly lost to foreign markets such as electronics. Lowering corporate taxes to competitive levels and rolling back a mountain of unnecessary and costly regulations is a really good start on that.

 

[NightFox]

Ummm...no

The speculation is that China's share of global output adjusted for purchasing power parity will surpass that of the United States in 2018 not that the size of Chinas Economy will surpass that of the United States in 2018, the speculation on that prospect happening is sometime after 2030.

That depends on who you ask, and I honestly don't have any means to determine that so I am as dependent on what others write/say just like most others here.

"BusinessInsider" says in 11 years which would put it around 2028.

This article in Forbes says 2018.
China's Economy Will Overtake The U.S. In 2018

2028 isn't 2018 and the consensus for China's nominal GDP exceeding that of the United States appears to be sometime after 2030, could be 2028, could be 2050, could be never but it's a very safe bet that it won't be in 2018.

There's no perfectly accurate way to determine that since unforeseen events affecting economic growth are as any economist will tell you, unforeseeable.

Who do you believe? I personally think economists, like weather forecasters, at best can make educated long range estimates, but I do believe we can safely say that China's economy is expanding at a much faster rate than ours and, given their far less oppressive regulation and taxation policies on commerce and industry, they no doubt will surpass us unless we rethink how we do things and stop clinging to the status quo.

The growth rate of China's economy is significantly higher than ours due a number of factors a few of which are: it's still significantly smaller (around 61% of US Nominal GDP) and thus can maintain higher growth rates at lower inflation risk, less complex, has a higher savings rate and has significant comparative advantage in a number of areas (e.g. manufacturing) which allows it to offset the deferred consumption of it's labor force with exports and thus maintain its high level of capital investment.

At the end of the day if/when China's nominal output exceeds that of the United States, it's not the end of the world as long as trade relations between the two countries remain positive and the United States Government doesn't further stifle the competitiveness of domestic producers any more than it already has.

Trade creates wealth for all parties involved over the long term comparative advantage will iron out who trades what with whom and how much of it.​

Well, within a year, we will know whether you or at least the guy at Forbes is correct.

I suspect that the Forbes article will be correct (or close), the problem is that it's not forecasting what you are saying it's forecasting, it's forecasting what I said 2 posts ago, that China's PPP adjusted share of global output will surpass that of the United States in 2018, what it's not saying is that the China's economy from a nominal GDP perspective will surpass that of the United States in 2018 (i.e. that'll it'll be bigger than that of the U.S.).

Like you, I don't see how China's 1.3 billion people producing more than our 330 million people would necessarily mean that the American people lose benefits UNLESS it includes a cost in American jobs, opportunity, prosperity. I am glad we have a President who understands that and who intends that free trade not include unfair trade and who knows that American commerce and industry must be allowed to be more competitive in a global market.

You have to look at comparative advantage which is really the key when it comes down to trade between nations, the question isn't how MUCH you produce, the question is are you producing the RIGHT THINGS.

Here's a really simple example of what I'm talking about:

We're both farmers..

You are really good at producing oranges (you have a comparative advantage in producing oranges)
I'm really good at producing apples (I have a comparative advantage in producing apples)

If I spend my efforts equally producing both apples and oranges, I can produce 50 apples and 25 oranges a day
If you spend your efforts equally doing the same you can produce 50 oranges and 25 apples a day

If I spend all my efforts producing only apples I can produce 100 apples a day
If you do the same with oranges you can produce 100 oranges a day

So one would say my opportunity cost of producing 1 orange is 2 apples, your opportunity cost of producing 1 apple is 2 oranges

If we decide to trade at a 1 to 1 ratio (our "trade agreement")
I take 25 of my 100 apples and trade them to you for 25 or your 100 oranges

Now I have 75 apples and 25 oranges
You have 75 oranges and 25 apples

If we hadn't traded and continued to split our time producing both we'd have had
Me 50 apples 25 oranges
You 50 oranges 25 apples

The fact that would decided to specialize and trade to comparative advantage made us both wealthier (I got an extra 25 apples, you got an extra 25 oranges), hope that makes sense.

The key is to stick to producing things that we have a comparative advantage in and trade for the things that we don't (and not do trade deals that disadvantage ourselves), (basically) in national terms that means government doesn't mangle up the markets trying to encourage wasting resources producing things we are at a comparative disadvantage producing.

Point well taken and brilliantly argued. The one component you left out of the equation though:

What if whatever handicaps you in production of oranges is remedied so that you become as efficient and cost effective as I am in producing oranges? And because we are both competitive, our customers will benefit from more affordable oranges even as we benefit ourselves.

Competition is a good thing, in your scenario, we'd both just find somebody else (with a comparative advantage in apples) to trade our oranges for apples with and compete on the terms of trade, which in turn would make apples more attractive to produce (higher priced) which in turn drives up supply (upward movement along the supply curve) until a new (higher) equilibrium price is reached.

That seems to be the goal, i.e. to remove as many barriers to profitability as possible for American commerce and industry so that it can be more competitive in a global market. We might even redevelop industries we have mostly lost to foreign markets such as electronics. Lowering corporate taxes to competitive levels and rolling back a mountain of unnecessary and costly regulations is a really good start on that.

That's a good goal, however given the federal government's track record, I'll believe it when I see it, in other words, when it comes to government I VERIFY and then I TRUST.

 

[Aldo Raine]

I totally agree that the gop should have ended corporate tax expenditures in exchange for corp tax cuts, but Wall St didn't want that

100% correct, expenditures for individuals and corporations should be ended. All tax rates could be cut and after debt paid off everybody's rates could be lowered again.

Tax expenditures are a strange animal. But if you end them:

If you live in your own apartment that you own, you will pay tax on the amount of rent that you are not paying to yourself plus you lose your deductions on your mortgage insurance and real estate taxes which would greatly lower the little guys ability to buy and own real property. That would shift a whole bunch of wealth to that top 1% in a hurry.

Employers who can now deduct their costs of helping to finance 401Ks, healthcare plans, and other employee benefits will be taxed on that money which would greatly reduce their ability and incentive to provide them.

Depreciation would be gone as well as deductions for charitable contributions. That would almost certainly result in less acquisition and further strain social services.

The topic of this thread is benefit to the people. How does eliminating means of the people to keep more of their own money that they work for and earn benefit them?

Well, it appears that the nee tax reform dors indeed eliminate many of the little guys perdonal exemptions. I am saying do the same for businesses and the uber wealthy. If the tax rate were say 15% for all would that not be fair. Businesses and the wealthy are paying the same as the working stiff, not a lower effective tax rate as yhey often do now.
Besides it is the same rate across the board, not robbing the wealthy for others free stuff that righty loves to throw out there.

 

[task0778]

I totally agree that the gop should have ended corporate tax expenditures in exchange for corp tax cuts, but Wall St didn't want that

100% correct, expenditures for individuals and corporations should be ended. All tax rates could be cut and after debt paid off everybody's rates could be lowered again.

Tax expenditures are a strange animal. But if you end them:

If you live in your own apartment that you own, you will pay tax on the amount of rent that you are not paying to yourself plus you lose your deductions on your mortgage insurance and real estate taxes which would greatly lower the little guys ability to buy and own real property. That would shift a whole bunch of wealth to that top 1% in a hurry.

Employers who can now deduct their costs of helping to finance 401Ks, healthcare plans, and other employee benefits will be taxed on that money which would greatly reduce their ability and incentive to provide them.

Depreciation would be gone as well as deductions for charitable contributions. That would almost certainly result in less acquisition and further strain social services.

The topic of this thread is benefit to the people. How does eliminating means of the people to keep more of their own money that they work for and earn benefit them?

Well, it appears that the nee tax reform dors indeed eliminate many of the little guys perdonal exemptions. I am saying do the same for businesses and the uber wealthy. If the tax rate were say 15% for all would that not be fair. Businesses and the wealthy are paying the same as the working stiff, not a lower effective tax rate as yhey often do now.
Besides it is the same rate across the board, not robbing the wealthy for others free stuff that righty loves to throw out there.

Righty loves to rob the wealthy for others free stuff? Really? And for God's sake check your spelling before you post,

Fine by me to go to a flat tax with no deductions. From the 1st dollar to the last.

 

[Foxfyre]

That depends on who you ask, and I honestly don't have any means to determine that so I am as dependent on what others write/say just like most others here.

"BusinessInsider" says in 11 years which would put it around 2028.

This article in Forbes says 2018.
China's Economy Will Overtake The U.S. In 2018

2028 isn't 2018 and the consensus for China's nominal GDP exceeding that of the United States appears to be sometime after 2030, could be 2028, could be 2050, could be never but it's a very safe bet that it won't be in 2018.

There's no perfectly accurate way to determine that since unforeseen events affecting economic growth are as any economist will tell you, unforeseeable.

Who do you believe? I personally think economists, like weather forecasters, at best can make educated long range estimates, but I do believe we can safely say that China's economy is expanding at a much faster rate than ours and, given their far less oppressive regulation and taxation policies on commerce and industry, they no doubt will surpass us unless we rethink how we do things and stop clinging to the status quo.

The growth rate of China's economy is significantly higher than ours due a number of factors a few of which are: it's still significantly smaller (around 61% of US Nominal GDP) and thus can maintain higher growth rates at lower inflation risk, less complex, has a higher savings rate and has significant comparative advantage in a number of areas (e.g. manufacturing) which allows it to offset the deferred consumption of it's labor force with exports and thus maintain its high level of capital investment.

At the end of the day if/when China's nominal output exceeds that of the United States, it's not the end of the world as long as trade relations between the two countries remain positive and the United States Government doesn't further stifle the competitiveness of domestic producers any more than it already has.

Trade creates wealth for all parties involved over the long term comparative advantage will iron out who trades what with whom and how much of it.​

Well, within a year, we will know whether you or at least the guy at Forbes is correct.

I suspect that the Forbes article will be correct (or close), the problem is that it's not forecasting what you are saying it's forecasting, it's forecasting what I said 2 posts ago, that China's PPP adjusted share of global output will surpass that of the United States in 2018, what it's not saying is that the China's economy from a nominal GDP perspective will surpass that of the United States in 2018 (i.e. that'll it'll be bigger than that of the U.S.).

Like you, I don't see how China's 1.3 billion people producing more than our 330 million people would necessarily mean that the American people lose benefits UNLESS it includes a cost in American jobs, opportunity, prosperity. I am glad we have a President who understands that and who intends that free trade not include unfair trade and who knows that American commerce and industry must be allowed to be more competitive in a global market.

You have to look at comparative advantage which is really the key when it comes down to trade between nations, the question isn't how MUCH you produce, the question is are you producing the RIGHT THINGS.

Here's a really simple example of what I'm talking about:

We're both farmers..

You are really good at producing oranges (you have a comparative advantage in producing oranges)
I'm really good at producing apples (I have a comparative advantage in producing apples)

If I spend my efforts equally producing both apples and oranges, I can produce 50 apples and 25 oranges a day
If you spend your efforts equally doing the same you can produce 50 oranges and 25 apples a day

If I spend all my efforts producing only apples I can produce 100 apples a day
If you do the same with oranges you can produce 100 oranges a day

So one would say my opportunity cost of producing 1 orange is 2 apples, your opportunity cost of producing 1 apple is 2 oranges

If we decide to trade at a 1 to 1 ratio (our "trade agreement")
I take 25 of my 100 apples and trade them to you for 25 or your 100 oranges

Now I have 75 apples and 25 oranges
You have 75 oranges and 25 apples

If we hadn't traded and continued to split our time producing both we'd have had
Me 50 apples 25 oranges
You 50 oranges 25 apples

The fact that would decided to specialize and trade to comparative advantage made us both wealthier (I got an extra 25 apples, you got an extra 25 oranges), hope that makes sense.

The key is to stick to producing things that we have a comparative advantage in and trade for the things that we don't (and not do trade deals that disadvantage ourselves), (basically) in national terms that means government doesn't mangle up the markets trying to encourage wasting resources producing things we are at a comparative disadvantage producing.

Point well taken and brilliantly argued. The one component you left out of the equation though:

What if whatever handicaps you in production of oranges is remedied so that you become as efficient and cost effective as I am in producing oranges? And because we are both competitive, our customers will benefit from more affordable oranges even as we benefit ourselves.

Competition is a good thing, in your scenario, we'd both just find somebody else (with a comparative advantage in apples) to trade our oranges for apples with and compete on the terms of trade, which in turn would make apples more attractive to produce (higher priced) which in turn drives up supply (upward movement along the supply curve) until a new (higher) equilibrium price is reached.

That seems to be the goal, i.e. to remove as many barriers to profitability as possible for American commerce and industry so that it can be more competitive in a global market. We might even redevelop industries we have mostly lost to foreign markets such as electronics. Lowering corporate taxes to competitive levels and rolling back a mountain of unnecessary and costly regulations is a really good start on that.

That's a good goal, however given the federal government's track record, I'll believe it when I see it, in other words, when it comes to government I VERIFY and then I TRUST.

As do I. It is just that we now have leadership with a background in business and economics who understands the concepts, plus it is not at all emotionally, financially, politically, or ideologically tied to the permanent political class and status quo that has so limited us and has put is into a state of slow decline. Because I can support the vision and goals, I can support the leadership. If it fails, it fails. But for sure nothing good can come of not trying to be better.

Again, lowering the corporate tax rates to competitive levels and rolling back unnecessary and onerous regulations is a very good start on that.

 

[Foxfyre]

I totally agree that the gop should have ended corporate tax expenditures in exchange for corp tax cuts, but Wall St didn't want that

100% correct, expenditures for individuals and corporations should be ended. All tax rates could be cut and after debt paid off everybody's rates could be lowered again.

Tax expenditures are a strange animal. But if you end them:

If you live in your own apartment that you own, you will pay tax on the amount of rent that you are not paying to yourself plus you lose your deductions on your mortgage insurance and real estate taxes which would greatly lower the little guys ability to buy and own real property. That would shift a whole bunch of wealth to that top 1% in a hurry.

Employers who can now deduct their costs of helping to finance 401Ks, healthcare plans, and other employee benefits will be taxed on that money which would greatly reduce their ability and incentive to provide them.

Depreciation would be gone as well as deductions for charitable contributions. That would almost certainly result in less acquisition and further strain social services.

The topic of this thread is benefit to the people. How does eliminating means of the people to keep more of their own money that they work for and earn benefit them?

Well, it appears that the nee tax reform dors indeed eliminate many of the little guys perdonal exemptions. I am saying do the same for businesses and the uber wealthy. If the tax rate were say 15% for all would that not be fair. Businesses and the wealthy are paying the same as the working stiff, not a lower effective tax rate as yhey often do now.
Besides it is the same rate across the board, not robbing the wealthy for others free stuff that righty loves to throw out there.

Again the President and his team got about 1/4th of what they wanted in reform so far. I personally think a 15%--10% would be better--flat tax rate across the board applied to earnings across the board from the lowest earners to the highest and on all profits regardless of what form they come in would be fair. It would also give everybody a stake in the tax codes taking most of the partisanship out of the equation. It would work only if the government is restricted to spending only the revenues it takes in except in cases of extreme national emergency such as somebody declaring war on us or some enormous natural disaster.

The tax reform of 2017 is only a beginning to what can be accomplished. It will take some months--in some cases years--to fully kick in. New manufacturing plants cannot be built overnight and we cannot respond on a moments notice to expand, grow, and start up new businesses. But the new tax policy coupled with reduced government spending on nonsense that benefits us as a people not at all and the continued rollback of onerous regulations should produce very good things. As does the removal of threats of punitive new taxes and regulation. And as good benefits promote incentive for more reform, we could be witnessing the regeneration of America into something we are all very proud of in all respects.

 

[Aldo Raine]

I totally agree that the gop should have ended corporate tax expenditures in exchange for corp tax cuts, but Wall St didn't want that

100% correct, expenditures for individuals and corporations should be ended. All tax rates could be cut and after debt paid off everybody's rates could be lowered again.

Tax expenditures are a strange animal. But if you end them:

If you live in your own apartment that you own, you will pay tax on the amount of rent that you are not paying to yourself plus you lose your deductions on your mortgage insurance and real estate taxes which would greatly lower the little guys ability to buy and own real property. That would shift a whole bunch of wealth to that top 1% in a hurry.

Employers who can now deduct their costs of helping to finance 401Ks, healthcare plans, and other employee benefits will be taxed on that money which would greatly reduce their ability and incentive to provide them.

Depreciation would be gone as well as deductions for charitable contributions. That would almost certainly result in less acquisition and further strain social services.

The topic of this thread is benefit to the people. How does eliminating means of the people to keep more of their own money that they work for and earn benefit them?

Well, it appears that the nee tax reform dors indeed eliminate many of the little guys perdonal exemptions. I am saying do the same for businesses and the uber wealthy. If the tax rate were say 15% for all would that not be fair. Businesses and the wealthy are paying the same as the working stiff, not a lower effective tax rate as yhey often do now.
Besides it is the same rate across the board, not robbing the wealthy for others free stuff that righty loves to throw out there.

Righty loves to rob the wealthy for others free stuff? Really? And for God's sake check your spelling before you post,

Fine by me to go to a flat tax with no deductions. From the 1st dollar to the last.

Sorry meant to say righty loves to say how us lowly working stiffs like to rob from the wealthy for free stuff. As far as spelling, typing from a phone so often hit wrong keys with fat fingers, sorry will do better.

 

[edthecynic]

Hey Foxy! Check this out:

The Free Market Beats Government Planning Every Time

Excerpt:

The average well-stocked supermarket carries 60,000 to 65,000 different items. Walmart carries about 120,000 different items.

Let’s suppose Congress puts you in total control of getting just one item to a supermarket—say apples. Let’s not make it easy by having the help of apple wholesalers. Thus, you would have to figure out all of the inputs necessary to get apples to your local supermarket.

Let’s look at just a few. You need crates to ship the apples. Count all the inputs necessary to produce crates. There’s wood, but you need saws to cut down trees. The saws are made of steel, so iron ore must be mined, and mining equipment is needed. The workers must have shoes.

The complete list of inputs to get apples to the market comes to a very large, possibly an unknowable, number. Forgetting any one of them, such as spark plugs, would probably mean no apples at your supermarket.

The beauty of market allocation of goods and services, compared with government fiat, is no one person needs to know all that’s necessary to get apples to your supermarket. Free markets, accompanied by free trade, including international free trade, make us richer by economizing on the amount of knowledge or information needed to produce things.

AND, this is without the politics getting involved with the corruption that goes with that.

Again, put the supermarket in charge of the military.

 

[edthecynic]

Hey Foxy! Check this out:

The Free Market Beats Government Planning Every Time

Excerpt:

The average well-stocked supermarket carries 60,000 to 65,000 different items. Walmart carries about 120,000 different items.

Let’s suppose Congress puts you in total control of getting just one item to a supermarket—say apples. Let’s not make it easy by having the help of apple wholesalers. Thus, you would have to figure out all of the inputs necessary to get apples to your local supermarket.

Let’s look at just a few. You need crates to ship the apples. Count all the inputs necessary to produce crates. There’s wood, but you need saws to cut down trees. The saws are made of steel, so iron ore must be mined, and mining equipment is needed. The workers must have shoes.

The complete list of inputs to get apples to the market comes to a very large, possibly an unknowable, number. Forgetting any one of them, such as spark plugs, would probably mean no apples at your supermarket.

The beauty of market allocation of goods and services, compared with government fiat, is no one person needs to know all that’s necessary to get apples to your supermarket. Free markets, accompanied by free trade, including international free trade, make us richer by economizing on the amount of knowledge or information needed to produce things.

AND, this is without the politics getting involved with the corruption that goes with that.

I also note that the article I linked was back in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. This one you linked is 2017, the first year of the Trump administration.

I suspect we have a President now who better understands the concept that Dr. Williams is teaching than did President Obama and the people surrounding him.

It's the same crap from the same idiot who obviously has learned nothing from 2009 to 2017.

 

[Slade3200]

Well that’s a very friendly and optimistic view. But if we are oooking objectively at the plan I think we see a very clear effort to put billions of dollars back in the accounts of corporations. That is clear and that is a supported position from many people as they believe it will create jobs and grow wages. But let’s be honest about it. And let’s be honest that what the bill does runs in contrast to how it is being presented by Trump.

He says it’s the biggest tax cut in American history, not true, Reagan took the tax rate from 70% to 28%. He also says it is a bill centered around the middle class. Again, not true. It gave $1000-$2000 a year to middle class families in some areas and a break even in other areas while Millions go into the accounts of top earners and corporations.

I actually like some of what Trump campaigns for, but I’m not seeing it translated. He is proving, to me, to be more of a talker than a doer who displays a strong understanding of details. He is a salesman

Trump is one helluva talker, I'll give you that. But all pols are pretty good at blowing their own horn, something he might have a natural talent for. If you're not seeing some progress from his policies then maybe you're not really looking. GDP is up quite a bit over what it was under Obama, and we haven't yet seen the effects kick in of the new tax bill. He's been cutting regulations and changing many gov't policies to be more business friendly and competitive with foreign interests, and the economy is getting stronger as a result. Don't know how anyone can deny that.

You see this tax bill as primarily putting billions back into the accounts of big corps, but I see it as leveling the international playing field. We are bringing our corp tax rate down to the point where it is about on par with most of our trading partners, or close to it. Are you going to tell me you don't see the benefits of doing that? What about the tax cuts for the middle class, who contrary to what the MSM says IS in fact getting the lions share of the tax cuts on the individual side. According to the Joint Committee on Taxes, the % change from the current tax code to the new one is greatest for the 3 groups between $40k -100k. So what's wrong with that. Look, you've GOT to incentivize investments if you want economic growth, and as a result the people with the most money to invest are going to do very well. That's just the way it is, if you want more investing then youlower the taxes on it.

View attachment 168219

I agree that the economy is in good shape. I think Trump is taking more credit than he is due and touting about it more than he should but thats what he does. Take unemployment for example. Trump takes credit for having one of the lowest unemployment rates in decades. But lets look at the historical trend and see where credit should be given:
View attachment 168223
GDP
You brought up GDP. Again lets just look at the historical chart and see how the Trump "explosion" has compared to past years:

Regulations
I'm all for cutting unnecessary regulations but I also recognize the danger in cutting too much. Reagan is praised by many for all the regulations he cut, but look what came from his deregulation of the financial industry... Ponzi schemes, mass corruption and thievery from wall street and in conjunction with Clinton and the democrats we saw the recent housing crisis destroy our economy and livelihood of many Americans.

So what is too much? Is it really necessary to spend millions on environmental studies before construction on a manufacturing plant that will employ hundreds or thousands can be built?

Is it really necessary that a small business man has to fill out forms and information providing essentially the same information to five to ten different government agencies when one form could be completed, sent to a central office who would distribute it to everybody else?

What is so horrible about the states deciding what is best and most profitable and beneficial for their people instead of the federal government dictating sometimes conflicting rules and regulations from Washington?

So what is too much? Is it really necessary to spend millions on environmental studies before construction on a manufacturing plant that will employ hundreds or thousands can be built?
I think there can be a healthy effort to invest and focus on both the environment and infrastructure. This isn't an either or game.

Is it really necessary that a small business man has to fill out forms and information providing essentially the same information to five to ten different government agencies when one form could be completed, sent to a central office who would distribute it to everybody else?
No, that isn't necessary and those regulations and systems should absolutely be reviewed and improved for efficiency.

What is so horrible about the states deciding what is best and most profitable and beneficial for their people instead of the federal government dictating sometimes conflicting rules and regulations from Washington?
Nothing horrible about that at all. State should be free to work that way and the Feds make national laws only when circumstances call for it.

So we are in agreement that the bureaucracy and red tape imposed by the federal government is out of control and too costly and oppressive. What was not said is that it has become a drag on American commerce and industry but I am making that argument now.

But not how you dodged the real issue in the matter of regulation. You stated there was a danger in cutting too much.

My question was: So what is too much? Is it really necessary to spend millions on environmental studies before construction on a manufacturing plant that will employ hundreds or thousands can be built?

You didn't really answer that. You responded: "I think there can be a healthy effort to invest and focus on both the environment and infrastructure. This isn't an either or game."

It IS an either or game. Nobody has argued, I don't believe, that there is no role for the federal government to impose certain NECESSARY regulation. Colorado should not be allowed to pollute the water that New Mexico depends on for instance. Ohio should not be subject to air pollution from a neighboring state's industrial plant. But is spending millions on years and years of environmental studies before a manufacturing plant that will employ hundreds or thousands can be built something that is beneficial to the people? Are all those rules and regulations necessary?

For example, the USA has the largest oil refining capability in the world but ALL our refineries are aging, contain serious safety issues as they age, and are not being upgraded or replaced. All are running at maximum capacity except for the 20% that are idled due to break downs or accidents/fires--and because there are so few, even one breaking down affects the price of gasoline.

A new refinery has a strong positive impact on a state's economy, but it costs billions to build resulting in modest profits for years. Add the almost impossible costs and entanglements of the enormous amount of regulations, paperwork, and red tape involved in meeting environmental regulations alone has resulted in no new refineries being built in the USA since 1976. That is more than four decades ago! Our population has increased by 1/3 over that 40 years and our need for refined petroleum products has doubled.

Nobody wants polluted air, water, soil. But commerce and industry can exist, produce, create jobs and a good living/life for hundreds of millions of people who can still enjoy a clean, healthy environment and aesthetic beauty. Wouldn't that be a better goal than thousands upon thousands of rules and regulations, many of which are likely outdated, unnecessary, and even detrimental, when it comes to benefiting the people?

I didn’t dodge that question, I answered best I could given the generalization. There are way to many factors involved to say one or the other. In some cases it might be best to invest in the construction, in others it might be best to do the environmental effort.

You sighted good examples about water and pollution. I agree that way to much money time and efforts are spend with the permitting process and studies. I’m more of a supporter of R&D and actually projects that clean our environment or prevent disasters.

 

[Slade3200]

I totally agree that the gop should have ended corporate tax expenditures in exchange for corp tax cuts, but Wall St didn't want that

100% correct, expenditures for individuals and corporations should be ended. All tax rates could be cut and after debt paid off everybody's rates could be lowered again.

Tax expenditures are a strange animal. But if you end them:

If you live in your own apartment that you own, you will pay tax on the amount of rent that you are not paying to yourself plus you lose your deductions on your mortgage insurance and real estate taxes which would greatly lower the little guys ability to buy and own real property. That would shift a whole bunch of wealth to that top 1% in a hurry.

Employers who can now deduct their costs of helping to finance 401Ks, healthcare plans, and other employee benefits will be taxed on that money which would greatly reduce their ability and incentive to provide them.

Depreciation would be gone as well as deductions for charitable contributions. That would almost certainly result in less acquisition and further strain social services.

The topic of this thread is benefit to the people. How does eliminating means of the people to keep more of their own money that they work for and earn benefit them?

Well, it appears that the nee tax reform dors indeed eliminate many of the little guys perdonal exemptions. I am saying do the same for businesses and the uber wealthy. If the tax rate were say 15% for all would that not be fair. Businesses and the wealthy are paying the same as the working stiff, not a lower effective tax rate as yhey often do now.
Besides it is the same rate across the board, not robbing the wealthy for others free stuff that righty loves to throw out there.

Righty loves to rob the wealthy for others free stuff? Really? And for God's sake check your spelling before you post,

Fine by me to go to a flat tax with no deductions. From the 1st dollar to the last.

If im a W2 employee and I make 100k salary then I’d pay 15k in taxes with your 15% flat tax plan. If you are self employed and you do 100k in sales but to earn that money You had 60k In expenses giving yourself a take home net of 40k then do you think I should be paying the same amount of taxes as me?

To save you some math, that plan would give me an after tax income of 85k and you 25k

 

[task0778]

I totally agree that the gop should have ended corporate tax expenditures in exchange for corp tax cuts, but Wall St didn't want that

100% correct, expenditures for individuals and corporations should be ended. All tax rates could be cut and after debt paid off everybody's rates could be lowered again.

Tax expenditures are a strange animal. But if you end them:

If you live in your own apartment that you own, you will pay tax on the amount of rent that you are not paying to yourself plus you lose your deductions on your mortgage insurance and real estate taxes which would greatly lower the little guys ability to buy and own real property. That would shift a whole bunch of wealth to that top 1% in a hurry.

Employers who can now deduct their costs of helping to finance 401Ks, healthcare plans, and other employee benefits will be taxed on that money which would greatly reduce their ability and incentive to provide them.

Depreciation would be gone as well as deductions for charitable contributions. That would almost certainly result in less acquisition and further strain social services.

The topic of this thread is benefit to the people. How does eliminating means of the people to keep more of their own money that they work for and earn benefit them?

Well, it appears that the nee tax reform dors indeed eliminate many of the little guys perdonal exemptions. I am saying do the same for businesses and the uber wealthy. If the tax rate were say 15% for all would that not be fair. Businesses and the wealthy are paying the same as the working stiff, not a lower effective tax rate as yhey often do now.
Besides it is the same rate across the board, not robbing the wealthy for others free stuff that righty loves to throw out there.

Righty loves to rob the wealthy for others free stuff? Really? And for God's sake check your spelling before you post,

Fine by me to go to a flat tax with no deductions. From the 1st dollar to the last.

If im a W2 employee and I make 100k salary then I’d pay 15k in taxes with your 15% flat tax plan. If you are self employed and you do 100k in sales but to earn that money You had 60k In expenses giving yourself a take home net of 40k then do you think I should be paying the same amount of taxes as me?

To save you some math, that plan would give me an after tax income of 85k and you 25k

There is a difference between 100k in sales and 100k in income.

 

[Aldo Raine]

100% correct, expenditures for individuals and corporations should be ended. All tax rates could be cut and after debt paid off everybody's rates could be lowered again.

Tax expenditures are a strange animal. But if you end them:

If you live in your own apartment that you own, you will pay tax on the amount of rent that you are not paying to yourself plus you lose your deductions on your mortgage insurance and real estate taxes which would greatly lower the little guys ability to buy and own real property. That would shift a whole bunch of wealth to that top 1% in a hurry.

Employers who can now deduct their costs of helping to finance 401Ks, healthcare plans, and other employee benefits will be taxed on that money which would greatly reduce their ability and incentive to provide them.

Depreciation would be gone as well as deductions for charitable contributions. That would almost certainly result in less acquisition and further strain social services.

The topic of this thread is benefit to the people. How does eliminating means of the people to keep more of their own money that they work for and earn benefit them?

Well, it appears that the nee tax reform dors indeed eliminate many of the little guys perdonal exemptions. I am saying do the same for businesses and the uber wealthy. If the tax rate were say 15% for all would that not be fair. Businesses and the wealthy are paying the same as the working stiff, not a lower effective tax rate as yhey often do now.
Besides it is the same rate across the board, not robbing the wealthy for others free stuff that righty loves to throw out there.

Righty loves to rob the wealthy for others free stuff? Really? And for God's sake check your spelling before you post,

Fine by me to go to a flat tax with no deductions. From the 1st dollar to the last.

If im a W2 employee and I make 100k salary then I’d pay 15k in taxes with your 15% flat tax plan. If you are self employed and you do 100k in sales but to earn that money You had 60k In expenses giving yourself a take home net of 40k then do you think I should be paying the same amount of taxes as me?

To save you some math, that plan would give me an after tax income of 85k and you 25k

There is a difference between 100k in sales and 100k in income.

Huge. Difference.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hey Foxy! Check this out:

The Free Market Beats Government Planning Every Time

Excerpt:

The average well-stocked supermarket carries 60,000 to 65,000 different items. Walmart carries about 120,000 different items.

Let’s suppose Congress puts you in total control of getting just one item to a supermarket—say apples. Let’s not make it easy by having the help of apple wholesalers. Thus, you would have to figure out all of the inputs necessary to get apples to your local supermarket.

Let’s look at just a few. You need crates to ship the apples. Count all the inputs necessary to produce crates. There’s wood, but you need saws to cut down trees. The saws are made of steel, so iron ore must be mined, and mining equipment is needed. The workers must have shoes.

The complete list of inputs to get apples to the market comes to a very large, possibly an unknowable, number. Forgetting any one of them, such as spark plugs, would probably mean no apples at your supermarket.

The beauty of market allocation of goods and services, compared with government fiat, is no one person needs to know all that’s necessary to get apples to your supermarket. Free markets, accompanied by free trade, including international free trade, make us richer by economizing on the amount of knowledge or information needed to produce things.

AND, this is without the politics getting involved with the corruption that goes with that.

I also note that the article I linked was back in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. This one you linked is 2017, the first year of the Trump administration.

I suspect we have a President now who better understands the concept that Dr. Williams is teaching than did President Obama and the people surrounding him.

It's the same crap from the same idiot who obviously has learned nothing from 2009 to 2017.

Oh I think he learned quite a bit. And the same crap? Idiot? Perhaps you could make a good argument for why a free market doesn't benefit the people at the supermarket or in producing apples and why he is wrong that no government has the capability of accomplishing the same thing?

 

[Foxfyre]

I would ask those participating in this thread to review the OP and the poll questions one more time.

Just considering the first three items on the list:

The tax reform bill just passed as I see it:
1. Was sold as one means to help promote thriving commerce and industry. Would that benefit the American people?

2. Was careful not to interfere in any way with the free market concept. Does that benefit the American people?

3. Was designed to make American commerce and industry at all levels more competitive with each other and in a global market. Will that benefit the American people?

 

[task0778]

I would ask those participating in this thread to review the OP and the poll questions one more time.

Just considering the first three items on the list:

The tax reform bill just passed as I see it:
1. Was sold as one means to help promote thriving commerce and industry. Would that benefit the American people?

2. Was careful not to interfere in any way with the free market concept. Does that benefit the American people?

3. Was designed to make American commerce and industry at all levels more competitive with each other and in a global market. Will that benefit the American people?

Yes, yes, and yes. But one wonders how much benefit relative to the cost. From what I hear, this bill will probably be amended at some point sooner or later so what will we end up with? But I think it was a good first step.

 

[Slade3200]

100% correct, expenditures for individuals and corporations should be ended. All tax rates could be cut and after debt paid off everybody's rates could be lowered again.

Tax expenditures are a strange animal. But if you end them:

If you live in your own apartment that you own, you will pay tax on the amount of rent that you are not paying to yourself plus you lose your deductions on your mortgage insurance and real estate taxes which would greatly lower the little guys ability to buy and own real property. That would shift a whole bunch of wealth to that top 1% in a hurry.

Employers who can now deduct their costs of helping to finance 401Ks, healthcare plans, and other employee benefits will be taxed on that money which would greatly reduce their ability and incentive to provide them.

Depreciation would be gone as well as deductions for charitable contributions. That would almost certainly result in less acquisition and further strain social services.

The topic of this thread is benefit to the people. How does eliminating means of the people to keep more of their own money that they work for and earn benefit them?

Well, it appears that the nee tax reform dors indeed eliminate many of the little guys perdonal exemptions. I am saying do the same for businesses and the uber wealthy. If the tax rate were say 15% for all would that not be fair. Businesses and the wealthy are paying the same as the working stiff, not a lower effective tax rate as yhey often do now.
Besides it is the same rate across the board, not robbing the wealthy for others free stuff that righty loves to throw out there.

Righty loves to rob the wealthy for others free stuff? Really? And for God's sake check your spelling before you post,

Fine by me to go to a flat tax with no deductions. From the 1st dollar to the last.

If im a W2 employee and I make 100k salary then I’d pay 15k in taxes with your 15% flat tax plan. If you are self employed and you do 100k in sales but to earn that money You had 60k In expenses giving yourself a take home net of 40k then do you think I should be paying the same amount of taxes as me?

To save you some math, that plan would give me an after tax income of 85k and you 25k

There is a difference between 100k in sales and 100k in income.

So you are ok deducting business expenses then? What is it you want to eliminate? Charitable contribution write offs. Child tax credits? Stuff like that?